Please read -- info about presidential directive -- IMPORTANT AND SCARY

[SharonRB]

I know word of Bush's Homeland Security directive issued on May 9 has been making the rounds on the 'nets and the radio, but I don't think it's being talked about enough. Word needs to be spread to everyone you know.

Tonight a friend sent me these two links:

Link to presidential directive: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Link to WorldNetDaily article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824

Now, I know that WorldNetDaily is a right-wing outlet, but this article is a pretty good summary of the directive without having to wade through the actual document. Below are some excerpts:

Bush makes power grab
Jerome Corsi
WorldNetDaily
Posted: May 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

<snip>


Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.

<snip>

NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.

Please, please, please read the full text of the article, if not the full text of the directive itself. This is the scariest thing I've ever read and sets the stage for a total takeover of the country. I know this sounds like I'm a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but nothing these guys do surprises me anymore and I wouldn't be surprised if they're planning something so that they can declare an emergency and put this into effect.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. thanks. this has had me worried alot lately. I am afraid what he is up to.

I think we, all du members need to flood the msm with this and demands for them to address this.
cspan had a segment on Washington Journal last friday on this. But, that is it. No one else is addressing it.
and we need to email our congress and senate.
He is up to some really nasty stuff.

[SharonRB]

6. It's been sent to KO and Conyers' office

Spread it far and wide. He must be stopped before whatever his plan is can be put into action.

[PDJane]

2. I've been watching this with dismay

For quite some time. All that it needs to institute martial law is an excuse and a presidential signature. That's it. And at that point, getting the country back will be a long, bloody and incredibly expensive struggle.

It scares the hell out of me, frankly; I hate the feeling that I'm living next to a nuclear-armed rogue superpower.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. I know he is up to something. and no one is raising alarm bells on it.

I sent this to one of my senators and am going to with the other one. This needs to be addressed now before it's too late.

[Prophet 451]

43. One word: Reichstag n/t

[SharonRB]

8. I'm terrified now that I've read this article and skimmed the directive itself

No wonder he's standing behind Gonzalez. He thinks nothing matters, since he's not only the decider, but the dictator, and whatever he wants he'll get. We can't let him take over the country.

[athena]

4. How can this be legal?

How can it be possible for the president to declare himself dictator and take over all three branches of government with just a presidential directive, without a constitutional amendment, without so much as a bill passed by congress? I don't understand it. If this directive has no legal standing, can't someone challenge it? What is the usual way to deal with presidential directives that are unconstitutional?

[SharonRB]

13. There's probably no precedent for it

I doubt any other president has ever done anything like this. I can't imagine it's legal, but Congress better take action quickly before they can do anything.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. It's not legal. But Congress has to question it, and someone needs

to challenge it in court.

In other words, Bush will get his way if no one steps up to the plate and challenges him.

[babylonsister]

5. Here's what TPM has to say, and quotes the ACLU:

I don't know how seriously to take this, but this might be a calming influence. I think we need to find a more reputable source than WND; tomorrow I'll start searching for alternate (or similar) opinions on what others think about this directive.

Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New
By Laura McGann - May 29, 2007, 3:31 PM

When a presidential directive appeared on the White House’s Web site on May 9, seemingly expanding the president's powers after a catastrophic attack, readers began emailing us asking why there had been no uproar in the media or amongst civil liberties groups.

The consensus amongst experts seems to be that the directive, aimed at establishing "continuity of government" after a major disaster, is not new nor does the policy seem to expand executive power.

In fact, Mike German, the policy counsel to the ACLU’s Washington office told me that an executive continuity plan actually might “not be that bad of an idea.”

Executive power expert, NYU law professor David Golove, also sent me an email saying the directive didn’t appear to be a power grab.

National Security Presidential Directive 51 or Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 is posted here. Have a look.

Presidential directives outlining how the executive branch will remain intact in the event of an emergency have been around since the Cold War. The directive posted this month is the first to be made public, to the best of German’s recollection. (A description of Clinton’s continuity directive is available here.) German called the release a positive sign, but said he urges the release of all previous directives so we can get a real sense of what has changed.

The concept of continuity of government applies to all branches of government. Christopher Kelleye, a presidency expert and political science professor at Miami University Ohio told me in an email that he didn’t see any new powers listed in the directive, but wondered why Congress hasn’t done the same thing.

[SharonRB]

14. I hated that WND was the source, but it seemed to be a pretty

accurate description of what was in the actual directive. It's still scary, if you ask me.

[RevCheesehead]

7. Jeez, even Palpatine worked his coup thru the Senate.

I guess Darth Chimpy is more powerful than Lord Sidius.

[Double T]

9. This is the kind of thing that can trigger a revolution.............

this administration has proved time and again that it can never be trusted.

[NYCGirl]

10. According to the ACLU, it's nothing new or different:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

In fact, Mike German, the policy counsel to the ACLU’s Washington office told me that an executive continuity plan actually might “not be that bad of an idea.”

Executive power expert, NYU law professor David Golove, also sent me an email saying the directive didn’t appear to be a power grab.

Presidential directives outlining how the executive branch will remain intact in the event of an emergency have been around since the Cold War. The directive posted this month is the first to be made public, to the best of German’s recollection. (A description of Clinton’s continuity directive is available here.) German called the release a positive sign, but said he urges the release of all previous directives so we can get a real sense of what has changed.

The concept of continuity of government applies to all branches of government. Christopher Kelleye, a presidency expert and political science professor at Miami University Ohio told me in an email that he didn’t see any new powers listed in the directive, but wondered why Congress hasn’t done the same thing.

MORE AT LINK

[SharonRB]

16. Sure seems like a power grab to me

It overrides the National Emergency Act and takes Congress out of the equation. How is that not a power grab?

[Bruce McAuley]

11. Enabling Acts of 1933 sets the precedent...

Enabling Act of 1933
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the German law passed in 1933 at the beginning of the Third Reich. For other laws of that name, see Enabling act.

The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) on March 23, 1933 and signed by President Paul von Hindenburg the same day. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the democratically-elected Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.

The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich ("Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation").
End of exerpt.
Sounds like history being repeated to me...
Evil bastards will use it too, make no mistake.

Bruce

[babylonsister]

12. Found a current article that will NOT make you feel better:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x284864

[SharonRB]

22. Thanks, Sister

I am definitely not feeling better about this. I don't see how the people at TPM and the ACLU can think this is business as usual -- keep walking, nothing to see here. Yeah, right. And next thing you know we're living in a police state.

I'm sure I'll have nightmares tonight.

[snappyturtle]

49. I already feel bad about these new directives and this article

just confirmed why. My big question: Why has * decided to do this now with so few months left in his term? I think it's time to circle the wagons.

[Patsy Stone]

15. I don't think you're a conspiracy theorist.

K&R

[SharonRB]

17. Thanks, Pats

This weekend may be our last hurrah -- We better make the most of it! It may be the last time we all get to see each other in person.

[cascadiance]

18. IMP PEACH the bums!

[dEMOK]

19. I was just about to post a thread on this subject...

Here's a very interesting report from Daily Koss --http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/29/12921/7971

[babylonsister]

20. Here's WaPo's article on it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050902719.html

[Timbuk3]

21. Makes you wonder when you read things like this post

"Why is Halliburton Building (at $385 Million Taxpayer's Expense) Concentration Camps???!!!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1008961

[globalvillage]

23. It's Corsi.

Nowhere does that nasty piece of trash say that it's SOP for a president to issue a disaster contingency plan.
He's sensationalizing. If there's one person slimier than bush, it's Corsi.
That's not to say Bush isn't issuing a directive outside the norm, but I'd look for a legitimate source.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x133010#133123

[SharonRB]

24. As I said, I wish the source hadn't been WND

but that's what was sent to me. If they're a right wing publication, wouldn't they actually sound more supportive of it than this?

To be honest, I tink it was a pretty accurate summation of the directive.

[globalvillage]

27. Clinton's has never been published.

So no way to compare it to what Bush has put out. I'm not saying there's no reason for concern.

Corsi is a lying sack of crap. That doesn't mean he's not right. There's a first time for everything.

I'm just saying consider the source.

[onenote]

37. you think it was an accurate summation?

You need to read it more carefully. The article claims for instance that there is no reference in the directive to Congress. While that may be technically true, there are references to the legislative branch, which is, of course, the same thing. And that's just one example.

[Canuckistanian]

25. Swiftboat Slime now showing some remorse?

Suck it up, Corsi. THIS is what you achieved.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. Bird flu. My money is on bird flu as the reason that he calls an emergency

and goes for the power grab.

[dEMOK]

29. k-r

[ProSense]

30. This lying scum sucking pig is being the lying scum sucking pig he's always been

MMFA investigates: Who is Jerome Corsi, co-author of Swift Boat Vets attack book?


He has a notion to finish the job of mind-fucking the American public after the Swift Liars assault on Kerry's campaign, the bragging and now a notion to run for president. Easy way is to pretend that Bush is the evil bastard he helped reelect.

Good luck promoting this lying scum sucking pig!

[globalvillage]

31. I'm guessing he can't count on your vote.

LOL.
I think the OP has a good point in that this needs looked into. By someone with a speck of credibility. That leaves Corsi out.

[SharonRB]

33. Agreed.

I was just trying to get it out there. Posting the link to the actual directive wouldn't have been enough -- it's too hard to read and follow. The Corsi article is what I had at hand, as that's what someone sent to me. That, together with the directive, gets the point across.

[SharonRB]

32. Read the directive itself

Corsi may be scum, but this particular article is an easily understandable summary of the actual directive -- it's much easier to read and understand. I'm not trying to promote Corsi or his causes.

[ProSense]

38. Even if this directive is worded with more emphasis on the executive than the previous,

Bush has made no secret that he is ignoring Congress. Yes, Bush is doing a power grab, but I don't need this lying asshole fear mongering using BS to make himself look like he has seen the light of his evil fucking ways. Sorry, but this guy did the same thing with NAFTA, and the scary superhighway, until it was realized that he was at the same time writing despicable stuff supportive of Bush and denouncing Murtha and other Democrats. He's is slime.

[onenote]

39. I have ..and the description in the cited article is full of crap

For example, it states that the directive makes no attempt to reconcile its terms with the terms of the National Emergency Act. In fact the directive expressly states that it "Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law"

The article also states that the directive "makes no reference whatsoever to Congress". In fact, it expressly recognizes that "each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs" and that "an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government." It also states that one of the "National Essential Functions" to be carried out pursuant to the the directives is "Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government."

[globalvillage]

40. Check out his wiki page.

Swiftboat liar and so much more. Or maybe 'so much less' is more accurate.
What a nasty piece of work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi

Thankfully, they didn't post a photo.

[Marie26]

34. I'll trust the ACLU over Corsi. nt

[SharonRB]

35. I may trust the ACLU, but I don't trust Bush

Read the actual directive -- it goes way beyond anything that could possibly be legal. With any other administration maybe it wouldn't be a problem, but I don't trust these guys -- give them "permission" with this directive, and they're liable to act on it at the slightest reason.

[onenote]

36. another example of people saying the sky is falling without knowing what they are talking about

Every time someone posts one of these threads describing this directive as a direct step towards martial law or dictatorship or some such, I ask the same questions (and no one ever answers):

Where does the directive say the things that it is accused of saying?
How does this directive differ from the one previously in place (adopted during the Clinton administration)?
How can anyone say that the directive doesn't refer anywhere to Congress when it clearly does, and more than once. For example, it states that "Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government." It also states that the directive "shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations".

Glad to see that the ACLU has debunked the fear mongering on this

[fortyfeetunder]

41. Sounds like a preparation for December 2008

something about not letting go of office...the third term...

[Rex]

42. Very interesting wording.

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

2(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

NEFs ,by their nature, seem to outweigh the other two branches decision making process. I'm not all warm and fuzzy on the Decider and his 7 year, legendary failure rate. It scares me. So I guess the POTUS shall lead, under any condition even unknowable, unpredictable or undetectable. I think this is their idea of a unitary branch.

[OneBlueSky]

44. George W. Bush, President for Life . . . n/t

.

[earth mom]

45. Anyone who is connecting the dots can see what's in the works-yet Congress doesn't Impeach.

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :scared:

[redacted]

46. Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency

by Lee Rogers
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20070521&articleId=5721
Global Research, May 21, 2007
roguegovernment.com

The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency”, the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.

The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.

"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.

The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20070521&articleId=5721

[Kablooie]

47. So could impeachment proceedings fall under the "catastrophic emergency" category?

b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

[babylonsister]

48. Here's an article by lawyer and prof Marjorie Cohn-she's not pleased.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in July.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1011037&mesg_id=1011037

[mvd]

50. I wouldn't trust this in the hands of someone..

who has made so many BS signing statements and from someone who calls himself The Decider. "The President shall direct.." might be all he needs to attempt a power grab.

[flyarm]

53. THANK YOU!! SENDING TO EVERYONE IN MY GROUPS!! EOM

[rhett o rick]

51. I posted on this and got ridiculed. Told to leave the Country and

called a fear monger. Bush issued this directive for a purpose. We need to get Congress to recognize it and address it before he uses it.

[AZBlue]

52. Kick - 'cause this is SCARY!

[rhett o rick]

54. So are the democrats going to deal with this or just wait until it is too late? nm